You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dixieagle
Guest
Because the Church doesn’t want to place obligations on a child that are likely not to be met due to parents not living up to their solemn responsibilities.If you could just baptize somebody and automatically make them fully and completely catholic, then why bother with worrying that they might not get the kind of background that would make them stay? I mean, if they can’t leave anyway, what difference does it make?
P
Phemie
Guest
It’s not the worry about them not getting the background to make them stay, it’s about creating obligations that they would never be able to meet because they are not taught about them.The other interesting thing is this: “A priest won’t baptize a child without a reasonable hope of him/her being raised Catholic because the Baptism creates obligations and responsibilities. It would be wrong to create those obligations knowing that the child may not even be taught about them properly.” I’m quoting you.
If you could just baptize somebody and automatically make them fully and completely catholic, then why bother with worrying that they might not get the kind of background that would make them stay? I mean, if they can’t leave anyway, what difference does it make?
Believe me, I’ve had time to reflect on that as I struggle against my compulsion to baptize the grandson whose mother, my daughter, refuses to have baptized. I don’t live close enough to guarantee that he would learn what he will need to know to fulfill the obligations I would impose on him should I immerse him as I’m giving him a bath. That’s the only thing that has kept me from doing so. Even a priest who’s known me for several years has expressed surprise that I haven’t done so, although he also congratulated me on my willpower.
But the Church in her wisdom, also says that we are to baptize children in danger of dying, even against their parents’ wishes.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Think hard. Isn’t that the same thing?It’s not the worry about them not getting the background to make them stay, it’s about creating obligations that they would never be able to meet because they are not taught about them.
What could possibly happen if you baptized the child and he grew up to be Catholic (nothing bad), but that’s not the point is it? The point is that if the mother doesn’t live as a Catholic, and doesn’t make arrangements and give consent to the baptism of her child, that the child probably isn’t going to follow through on that consent and be Catholic. The end result would be someone else who’s baptized but not living like a Catholic–which is the same thing as not following through on obligations imposed at baptism.Believe me, I’ve had time to reflect on that as I struggle against my compulsion to baptize the grandson whose mother, my daughter, refuses to have baptized. I don’t live close enough to guarantee that he would learn what he will need to know to fulfill the obligations I would impose on him should I immerse him as I’m giving him a bath. That’s the only thing that has kept me from doing so. Even a priest who’s known me for several years has expressed surprise that I haven’t done so, although he also congratulated me on my willpower.
But the Church in her wisdom, also says that we are to baptize children in danger of dying, even against their parents’ wishes.
That’s the whole thing right there. You don’t baptize people who you think aren’t going to be Catholic. That’s the reason for the caution on non-practicing parents.
D
dixieagle
Guest
It’s your #3 that is the sticking point, that “right to be Catholic” thing. Clearly, her parents feel that part of being Catholic entails upholding the Church’s teachings about marriage. In this case, doing so is causing distress to their daughter, who has rejected their faith.You’re right. It isn’t. So her parents need to stand down.
The best thing that could probably happen is that the OP and her parents have a series of decent conversations where:
A wedding is a joyous affair, not an occasion for warfare. The OP and her parents are going to have to get past this mess they currently have. Or it’s only going to get worse. Civil, adult and decent behavior is the only way. It is what it is.
- they recognize her right at the age of 27 (or whatever it is) to marry whom she wants where she wants,
- that they recognize her ability to be a Methodist if she wants to be one,
- that she respect that they have a right to be Catholics if they want to be,
- that they come to some sort of a practical arrangement about who plays what part in the wedding, and all that,
- that they behave like civilized human beings.
They have choices to make, in good conscience; they are very difficult. Your point of view seems to minimize the anguish felt by her parents; everything would be hunky-dory if her unreasonable parents just caved. Not that easy when one has deeply held, lifelong beliefs.
P
Phemie
Guest
It’s not a joyous affair when the Church says it’s a mortal sin. It’s not a joyous affair when the parents are asked to go against their faith. It can’t be joyous for the parents to see their daughter risk her soul. Why can’t anyone see that these people are hurting, big time?A wedding is a joyous affair, not an occasion for warfare. The OP and her parents are going to have to get past this mess they currently have. Or it’s only going to get worse. Civil, adult and decent behavior is the only way. It is what it is.
They are wrong to try to force her to bend to their wishes and lie to the Church but they are not wrong to be sad and angry.
C
Corki
Guest
No need to get snarky. It’s not my* latest *description. It’s the same one I have made three times. And yes, Baptism makes one a Christian.According to this latest description of yours then, baptism then makes a person Christian. This is what my non-Catholic baptism did too–the one that was accepted as valid when I came into the Church.
Well, it is pretty automatic when the family is practicing Catholics.Except that there is a matter of consent. The Church doesn’t just take all the babies that are born to parents who happen to be Catholic and baptize them automatically like a machine.
Sometimes. It used to be more common for parents to simply bring their child to be baptised. Since Vatican II, the Church prefers baptims be celebrated by the whole parish so it is scheduled. But that is about logistics, not consent.The parents have to call and set it up.
Questions are asked to make sure that at least one parent is Catholic, that the godparent(s) are practicing Catholics, that they live in the parish. These are all still about logistics.Questions are asked of the parents, which imply consent or they wouldn’t be asked.
As far as I know, the only “consent” type question is to make sure that the person who is asking for Baptism has the legal right to do so.
Actually, it’s in spite of consent. The reason we hear about this is that some parents who not only consent but insist that their child be baptised are told “not now” if they are not able to give the priest reasonable hope that the child will be raised Catholic.You said yourself that there are situations where children born to Catholic parents are not baptized automatically if their parents are not likely to raise them as Catholic. There is some consent required.
The other interesting thing is this: “A priest won’t baptize a child without a reasonable hope of him/her being raised Catholic because the Baptism creates obligations and responsibilities. It would be wrong to create those obligations knowing that the child may not even be taught about them properly.” I’m quoting you.
It’s not background to make them stay. It’s background to understand what the Church is and what she expects. They can still leave - people do all the time.If you could just baptize somebody and automatically make them fully and completely catholic, then why bother with worrying that they might not get the kind of background that would make them stay? I mean, if they can’t leave anyway, what difference does it make.
But people come back too - all the time. The Church doesn’t apply her teaching on a case-by-case basis. The teaching is consistent in all situations.
M
minkymurph
Guest
No, I did not intend to suggest she did. But is it not the case that someone who was baptized Catholic, but did not make their first confession, receive Holy Communion and was not Confirmed would not be able to marry in a Catholic Church unless they did because they are not in full communion with the Church? That’s perhaps what I was getting at and a better term, not in full communion. It’s not they are not Catholic at all but rather not in full communion? For instance, in my part of the world children receive their first Holy Communion at 7/8, and are Confirmed at 11. They must receive Holy Communion on the tongue until they have been Confirmed because they are not in full communion with the Church. There is also much discussion and debate surrounding Confirming children at 11 as many consider it too young.The OP was Baptized as an infant. She didn’t receive the Sacrament “against her will” since an infant cannot form, let alone express, an intention to deny the Sacrament. By extension, it would seem that you are saying that all Catholics who were Baptized as infants are not “truly Catholic” unless they do something extra.
I see what you mean, but is the ‘extra’ not taken on by the parents, as in they accept certain responsibilities and it’s not just a matter of having the child baptized? I would also say that while we do our best as parents, there reaches a stage where their children must embrace the Catholic faith of their own free will, and not just because we tell them to, and it is better for them if they do in terms of faith development. If they don’t do that, they’re only being Catholic to please us if you catch my drift.Which is why priests often won’t baptize babies unless there is a reasonable chance they will be brought up in the faith and why it is so wrong for “grandma” to secretely Baptise a baby against the parents’ wishes. There are real, life long, (name removed by moderator)lications to being Baptized.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Her parents are acting with the agency of Christ the Good Shepherd. Remember him, the one who leaves 99 sheep alone so he can go out and seek one lost sheep and bring it back to the fold? (When Jesus told this parable, all the Jews understood exactly what he meant. A shepherd who left 99 sheep was crazy, and bound to be fired for his negligence. Jesus was setting a new example as shepherd of men.)Terrorize them??? The Catholic Church isn’t a cult which hunts down those who leave and drags them back.
There is a difference here between the institutional Catholic Church and her members. The Church doesn’t assign clergy to go out and drag heretics back against their will. Indeed, the Church takes her evangelistic mission very seriously. The Church commissions whole orders of religious to go out into the world and preach the Gospel to the lost, the poor, the pagans, the Protestants, the atheists. The Gospel message must get through to some people. It is the seed scattered by the sower. The Church has a Great Commission to sow that seed among people of all nations.
The members of the Church also have an evangelistic mission. We cannot preach with the authority of the Magisterium, but we can witness our personal faith to others. Some of us are called to speak to Catholics - that is what we do on the Catholic Answers forums. Some of us are called to speak to atheists instead. Parents are first and foremost called to witness to their children, to nurture them in the True Faith, and to call them back if they stray. Take the example of faithful St. Monica. Wife of a pagan man, she did everything possible for her pagan son, who strayed from the faith and spent his young life on immorality. She prayed for his conversion. She didn’t give up. The OP’s parents shouldn’t give up. There comes a point where they should back off, and that is what they have vowed to do. They will not support their daughter in an invalid marriage. I am sure that they will continue to pray for her conversion and salvation. I am grateful that my parents also prayed in this way, and eventually their prayers were answered.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Minkymurph,
In Ireland, the government doesn’t support the Church, but they do in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=1551&kb_header_id=33981&kb_id=33141
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11211
In Ireland, the government doesn’t support the Church, but they do in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=1551&kb_header_id=33981&kb_id=33141
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11211
M
minkymurph
Guest
I appreciate you’re links, but both refer to Germany. Germany is one European country.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Yes, exactly. If her parents are Catholic does that have to extend to their 27 year old daughter? No.It’s your #3 that is the sticking point, that “right to be Catholic” thing. Clearly, her parents feel that part of being Catholic entails upholding the Church’s teachings about marriage. In this case, doing so is causing distress to their daughter, who has rejected their faith.
They have choices to make, in good conscience; they are very difficult. Your point of view seems to minimize the anguish felt by her parents; everything would be hunky-dory if her unreasonable parents just caved. Not that easy when one has deeply held, lifelong beliefs.
Catholics don’t have the right to make other people do things against their wills. Catholics don’t do a good enough job of keeping their own souls out of hot water, that they can go around trying to force other people to do their bidding. That’s not how religion works.
This girl shouldn’t try to make her parents personally denounce anything verbally. She doesn’t have that right. In like manner, they don’t have the right to make her denounce anything verbally either. The way in which this plays out with respect to roles in the wedding is going to have to be worked out between this girl and her parents. They are going to have to come to an understanding about details.
For instance, as her father, maybe it’s okay for the father to walk his daughter down the aisle, but in turn, the wedding should be separate from a Church service and no one should receive any thing that looks like communion ceremony during the wedding, etc etc.There are practical things that can be worked out. Warfare is not inevitable.
I don’t envy this girl. Catholics can be tyrants about this stuff.
What’s really scarier, is what happens when this girl has a poor little kid? Yikes.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I appreciate what you are saying, and I believe it is also the case that in Scandinavian countries they pay a tax to the Lutheran Church. I’m just saying it varies greatly from country to country within Europe. Sorry if it seems like I’m nit picking, but it would be more accurate to say ‘some European countries’ rather than ‘Europe.’Minkymurph,
In Ireland, the government doesn’t support the Church, but they do in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=1551&kb_header_id=33981&kb_id=33141
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11211
D
dixieagle
Guest
Do you not grasp at all how faithful Catholic parents would be utterly devastated that their daughter has rejected the faith in which they brought her up and which they regard as having the fullness of Truth?Yes, exactly. If her parents are Catholic does that have to extend to their 27 year old daughter? No.
Catholics don’t have the right to make other people do things against their wills. Catholics don’t do a good enough job of keeping their own souls out of hot water, that they can go around trying to force other people to do their bidding. That’s not how religion works.
Whether you agree with their viewpoint about attending or walking her down the aisle or not, as a professed Catholic I would think you would empathize with them and be saddened at the loss of even one “sheep”, as a previous poster eloquently mentioned.
I
iloveangels
Guest
You’re nitpicking. The subject of formal defection from the Church was brought up and I was using this as an example of a reason why it’s not just a simple “walk-out-the-door” exercise everywhere in the world. As a point of fact, in Austria, for instance, it’s not just a “walk-out-the-door” exercise.I appreciate what you are saying, and I believe it is also the case that in Scandinavian countries they pay a tax to the Lutheran Church. I’m just saying it varies greatly from country to country within Europe. Sorry if it seems like I’m nit picking, but it would be more accurate to say ‘some European countries’ rather than ‘Europe.’
I
iloveangels
Guest
Her parents are upset. Her parents are sad. That doesn’t give them the right to act like nuts. They need to work something out.Her parents are acting with the agency of Christ the Good Shepherd. Remember him, the one who leaves 99 sheep alone so he can go out and seek one lost sheep and bring it back to the fold? (When Jesus told this parable, all the Jews understood exactly what he meant. A shepherd who left 99 sheep was crazy, and bound to be fired for his negligence. Jesus was setting a new example as shepherd of men.)
There is a difference here between the institutional Catholic Church and her members. The Church doesn’t assign clergy to go out and drag heretics back against their will. Indeed, the Church takes her evangelistic mission very seriously. The Church commissions whole orders of religious to go out into the world and preach the Gospel to the lost, the poor, the pagans, the Protestants, the atheists. The Gospel message must get through to some people. It is the seed scattered by the sower. The Church has a Great Commission to sow that seed among people of all nations.
The members of the Church also have an evangelistic mission. We cannot preach with the authority of the Magisterium, but we can witness our personal faith to others. Some of us are called to speak to Catholics - that is what we do on the Catholic Answers forums. Some of us are called to speak to atheists instead. Parents are first and foremost called to witness to their children, to nurture them in the True Faith, and to call them back if they stray. Take the example of faithful St. Monica. Wife of a pagan man, she did everything possible for her pagan son, who strayed from the faith and spent his young life on immorality. She prayed for his conversion. She didn’t give up. The OP’s parents shouldn’t give up. There comes a point where they should back off, and that is what they have vowed to do. They will not support their daughter in an invalid marriage. I am sure that they will continue to pray for her conversion and salvation. I am grateful that my parents also prayed in this way, and eventually their prayers were answered.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Is the OP in Austria?As a point of fact, in Austria, for instance, it’s not just a “walk-out-the-door” exercise.
You accuse them, and Catholics as a whole, of many things. If it is “acting like a nut” to adhere to Church teaching and refuse participation in invalid ceremonies, then I am proud to act like a nut.Her parents are upset. Her parents are sad. That doesn’t give them the right to act like nuts. They need to work something out.
D
dixieagle
Guest
“Act like nuts?” Really? Is that what you think when anyone professes strong belief in the tenets of their faith?Her parents are upset. Her parents are sad. That doesn’t give them the right to act like nuts. They need to work something out.
P
Phemie
Guest
No, it isn’t. He would not be culpable because he’d have no knowledge. But he’d still be Catholic and obligated to marry in the Catholic Church and any marriage he contracted outside the Church would be invalid. Except he’d never be aware of it unless I’m around to teach him that.Think hard. Isn’t that the same thing?
I
iloveangels
Guest
And in some cases, the wisdom of this is questionable. When a person grows up and wants to leave they can, and that’s a fact.Well, it is pretty automatic when the family is practicing Catholics.
It’s as much about consent as it is about logistics. If you never get around to it, they’re not going to come to your house and drag you down there. In fact, you may never even hear anything about it.Sometimes. It used to be more common for parents to simply bring their child to be baptised. Since Vatican II, the Church prefers baptims be celebrated by the whole parish so it is scheduled. But that is about logistics, not consent.
So the questions are entirely rhetorical? That’s interesting.Questions are asked to make sure that at least one parent is Catholic, that the godparent(s) are practicing Catholics, that they live in the parish. These are all still about logistics…As far as I know, the only “consent” type question is to make sure that the person who is asking for Baptism has the legal right to do so.
Actually an indefinite “not now” is the same as “never.”Actually, it’s in spite of consent. The reason we hear about this is that some parents who not only consent but insist that their child be baptised are told “not now” if they are not able to give the priest reasonable hope that the child will be raised Catholic.
What difference does it make what the church expects if you’re forced to do it anyway? Why should it matter if once you’re baptized, you can’t leave?It’s not background to make them stay. It’s background to understand what the Church is and what she expects. They can still leave - people do all the time.
The teaching about coming back is always the same for one simple reason: The church will take back anyone who wants to come back. [Sometimes with conditions, but still.]But people come back too - all the time. The Church doesn’t apply her teaching on a case-by-case basis. The teaching is consistent in all situations.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.